“The Evil Modern Day Works of Satan”

January 12, 2011 at 7:00 am 137 comments

Cross-posted at Waking Up Now.

by Rob Tisinai

NOM’s blog yesterday quotes a sermon from Bishop Robert Evans:

I submit that today, in the State of Rhode Island, we are faced with a challenge to our baptismal promises to renounce the modern day evil works of Satan and confess our belief in Christ and His holy Catholic Church…This challenge takes the form of an attempt to grant to same sex couples that recognition reserved for the oldest and the only institution God created in His own image: Man as male and female united in marriage.

The evil modern day works of Satan.

NOM claims they’re not anti-gay.  They’ve complained about unjust accusations of hatred.  I have to ask:

If it’s not hatred to say your opponents are working to advance the cause of Satan, then what is?

That’s not a rhetorical question.  I really want to know where NOM sees the line between civil discourse and hatred.  I want them to make it clear.

To me, this is hate.  I don’t care that it’s based on religious belief — anyone who’s studied history knows that religious passion can inspire hatred, and vice versa.  And I don’t even want to shut him down — “hate speech” isn’t a crime in this country and I hope it never is.

But we still need to denounce it when we hear it — shine the light of truth on it and call it out for what it is.

The good and gentle Bishop’s statement has a few more problems:  He repeats the lie that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality, when every Bible reader knows the prophet Ezekial said:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Jesus extends this condemnation of arrogance and inhospitability when he tells his disciples:

Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Anyone who reads the story can tell you it’s not about commited same-sex relationships but about the violent gang rap of two men/angels, which surely we can all oppose.  Evans’ lie about this Bible story makes it all the more ironic when he tells his parishoners:

Remember the title Jesus gave Satan: “The father of lies.”

There’s more.  Evans tell his flock:

In this battle, there is no neutrality, no demilitarized zone.

Is this just a case of awful timing?  I don’t think for one moment he meant this as anything but a metaphor (a literal interpretation would leave him open to charges of incitement to violence, a criminal offense that long predates hate crime legislation).  But Evans gave this sermon on two days ago, on Sunday, January 9.  Given our current turmoil over the limits of rhetoric, along with the long and very real history of anti-gay violence in America, shouldn’t a spiritual leader be in the vanguard of those pulling back from such speech?

But leave aside his unfortunate phrasing.  This man is lying about the Bible and saying that gays are doing the work of Satan.  And NOM is spreading the message.

I have to ask again — if that’s not hate, what is?

Entry filed under: NOM Exposed, Right-wing.

Coming out swinging in Rhode Island Maggie calls us gloaters, then pulls post. Which kind of makes us wanna gloat, frankly.

137 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 7:12 am

    Thanks Rob for piece that once again points out the logic(ill-logic) of Bible touting Christians….who don’t even know their own bible!

    “Is this just a case of awful timing?” My hubby thinks it is VERY deliberate…many conservative radicals are trying to incite “true Americans” to use violence in this “righteous cause” akin to Sarah Palin’s cross-hairs set on public figures…and like President Bush distributed a deck of cards of persons to KILL in a righteous cause after 911….

    Reply
  • 5. Straight For Equality  |  January 12, 2011 at 7:18 am

    Reply
    • 6. Ann S.  |  January 12, 2011 at 11:16 am

      §

      Reply
      • 7. JonT  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:43 pm

        Reply
  • 8. Sagesse  |  January 12, 2011 at 7:50 am

    Scribin’ for later. Busy day.

    Reply
  • 9. Peterplumber  |  January 12, 2011 at 7:59 am

    I have to ask again — if that’s not hate, what is?

    Fear.

    Reply
    • 10. anonygrl  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:05 pm

      Often the the two go hand in hand. And hate is the offspring of fear.

      Reply
      • 11. elliom  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:40 am

        Fear begets anger
        Anger begets hate
        Hate begets violence

        The connection is clear.

        Reply
        • 12. Rhie  |  January 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm

          I heard that in Yoda’s voice. If a small green alien gets it, we should too!

          Reply
  • 13. Kathleen  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:03 am

    Reply
  • 14. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:04 am

    This can be interpreted in many different ways, “Man as male and female united in marriage.”

    Reply
  • 15. Ronnie  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Once again NOM & their supporters prove that they are 100% in the same mindset of their 1692 Salem counterparts….. NOM = Hate…….

    : I ……Ronnie

    Reply
    • 16. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:24 am

      this is the video for NOM and well-paid-for-selling-hate-and-fear Evangelists:

      Reply
    • 17. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:11 pm

      At least the hateful residents of 17th cent. Salem could today fall back on the fact they were tripping out on bad rye, victims of ergot poisoning. What’s NOM’s excuse? (I know, trick question. There IS no excuse for NOM)

      Reply
  • 18. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:34 am

    For some reason, this particular post is NOT showing up on the home page: http://prop8trialtracker.com/

    Reply
  • 19. JoeXell!  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:54 am

    “I submit that today, in the State of Rhode Island, we are faced with a challenge to our baptismal promises to renounce the modern day evil works of Satan and confess our belief in Christ and His holy Catholic Church. On the day of our baptism, we chose whose side we are on.
    Homily of Bishop Robert C. Evans for Sunday, March 9th, 2011

    I was about 6 months old on that day… I don’t recall what exactly I ‘chose’.

    Reply
    • 20. fiona64  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:07 am

      Ditto.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 21. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:09 am

      2011? ; )

      Reply
      • 22. Lynn E  |  January 14, 2011 at 1:42 am

        I think the article should say that the bishop’s homily was delivered on Sunday, January 9th, 2011.
        Perhaps the good bishop should refer back to the readings at Mass on the 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time. Exodus 22:21 warns that we should not molest the stranger living in our midst, since we should remember how it was to be a foreigner in a strange land.

        Reply
        • 23. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 14, 2011 at 12:16 pm

          That very verse is what got a Jewish chaplain transferred away from Ft. Bragg a couple years ago, shortly after Passover. We were invited to the Passover seder on base, and when we tried to find out what we needed to do, that particular Jewish chaplain informed us that we were not welcome, even though my husband is a Lubavitcher rabbi. Well, my husband contact the JWB and the next thing we knew, the chaplain was being transferred to the military equivalent of Siberia for not doing his job properly.
          You see, that verse is why there are always extra places set at the Passover seder, and the door is left open.

          Reply
    • 24. Sarah  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm

      I think it happened in the same way you chose to be gay or straight… :)

      Reply
    • 25. anonygrl  |  January 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm

      I wonder if that was the same day we chose who we will be attracted to?

      Reply
  • 26. Polydactyl  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Clearly, unless they’re actually lynching you and burning the corpse, it’s not “hatred.”

    Reply
  • 27. Bob  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:32 am

    serious question ? you say hate speach is not a crime in this country and I hope it never is,,,,,,, why not????

    how would it harm the country by curbing hate speach?? they have taken a step,,, hate speach is illegal within 300ft of a funeral….

    I really need help understanding why people are so cettain that hate speach is necessary in society???????

    Reply
    • 28. nightshayde  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:45 am

      It’s not that “hate speech” specifically is necessary, but that freedom of speech is necessary.

      The term “hate speech” means very different things to different people — which also means that the government’s definition of hate speech (and thus what people are allowed to say or are prosecuted for saying) could change drastically depending on who holds power at any one time.

      I, for one, wouldn’t want Sarah Palin and her ilk getting to decide what speech was allowed and what wasn’t. For her and people like her, any criticism of fundamentalist Christianity can be considered hate speech. Heaven forbid she or Mike Huckabee ever be elected President — especially if the radical right were to muster enough votes to hold both the House and the Senate.

      I’d much rather have a society in which all speech is allowed, but people have the power to analyze and criticize what is said.

      Reply
      • 29. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:57 am

        ! I would not care to be censored either !

        Reply
      • 30. Bob  |  January 12, 2011 at 10:42 am

        so we have the distinction between free speech, and hate speech,,,,,

        and the intersection is the causing of harm,,,,, i.e. my right to swing my arm ends where another persons nose begins…..

        the 300ft line, is just an indication that 1) people are aware that hate speach, infringes on anothers human rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, hate speach hurts, 2) that laws can be enacted to limit the harm of hate speech

        if you really want to protect your freedom of seech, someone needs to challenge the 300ft free zone in which it is illegal…

        again I say this is a small step,,, but it is a limitation of free speech

        Reply
        • 31. Bob  |  January 12, 2011 at 10:45 am

          that should read, it is a limitation on hate speech……..

          Reply
        • 32. Kathleen  |  January 12, 2011 at 11:20 am

          I think this notion of free speech at almost any cost is so ingrained in the American psyche that it’s hard for people to conceive a country where it’s not so.

          Fact is, we do put limits on speech now and it requires drawing a line. The line is usually drawn by legislators and the law they enact is then challenged in the courts. Ultimately, the courts decide whether the restrictions in the law comport with the Constitution.

          It’s almost inevitable that this current law from Arizona will be challenged. (but probably not before these current funerals, unless someone successful petitions for an emergency injunction). Other communities have passed similar laws and I think at least one of those has been challenged already and the case is making its way through the courts.

          Personally, I can envision a country where hate speech is outlawed and am not troubled by what I see. Just like any law restricting speech, there would be contention over where the line should be drawn, i.e., what constitutes hate speech vs. simply expressing a different point of view, and we’d have all the same kinds of lawsuits. The only difference is that we would have agreed, as a society, that the benchmark has moved.

          Reply
          • 33. fiona64  |  January 12, 2011 at 11:30 am

            I think that people are missing one important point here: freedom of speech means simply that the government does not haul you away to the gulag for saying your piece. It doesn’t give you the right to spew hate without consequences, or to say whatever you want, wherever you want (the proverbial “No yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre”).

            No one said that the Phelps loonies couldn’t spew their crap; they said they couldn’t spew it within 300 feet of the funeral.

            Love,
            Fiona

          • 34. Kathleen  |  January 12, 2011 at 11:42 am

            You can bet that someone will, later if not sooner, challenge whether this is a constitutional restriction on speech. As Fiona points out, the challenge will not be that the WBC doesn’t have a right to say what they do, but only the question of whether the gov’t is allowed to set this particular time and place restriction.

            We place similar restrictions now, even with speech we revere. See, for example, the restrictions on campaigning within a certain distance of polling places. We’ve decided that there is a compelling state interest in this restriction and thus allow this infringement.

            As I said, there are plenty of restrictions on speech now, but we have never been willing to restrict it just because the content is hateful. Other countries have chosen to take a different approach, while still maintaining a society that values open discourse. Canada is an excellent example.

          • 35. Bob  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:44 pm

            why so defensive, gov’t hauling people off to the gulag?? where is that coming from…..

            everyone has the right to say their piece,,, it’s a basic human right,,, which has rules in authoritarian countries which go to the extreme,,,, but also very liberal counties choose to impose some rules around peoples freedom of speech,,, in this case the goal being to alleviate harm … and so seperate out things like hate speech, or speech which is deemed to incite violence…. the goal is not to restrain people, but to work towards a fair and just and peaceful society,,,, if Phelps moved in next door to me,, he would not have the freedom to post his signs, and say hateful things over my fence…. well he could, but the goal here is that I have recourse through the courts, which give me the power, which nightshade talks about, to take him to task, and analzye and critize his behaviors… I have to prove that his speech harms me,,,

            what I would like to say is that our laws around hate speech, have very little impact on individual citizens,, I do not feel my freedom is any way infringed,,, it is not experienced by me as a right taken away but one reinforced,,,,,,,,,,,, the people who may see it as an infringement are those on the fringe, like phelps, or palin,,, they want to defend it,,,,

            average every day citizens go about there lives without ever thinking about hate speech,,, but when a situation arises I think most citizens are glad that their is some recourse through the courts,,, the latest issue in Canada was a cross burning in front of a bi-racial couples house. that was prosecuted as a hate crime,,,, the punishment wasn’t that horrendous, but the outcome was a win for everyone,,, the perpetrator apologized for his ignorance in not realizing the full extent of his actions and their impact on the couple….
            I don’t know, about other Canadians and it might be interesting to check but I never once considered it as an assault on the perpatraors right to feedom of speech or experession, and that somehow curtailing that would somehow one day censor me and impinge my rights, I thought great solution to a problem,,,

            I think most Canadians value the freedom of speech to such an extent that we know that when speech decends to the level of hate, it ain’t free no more, someone’s going to pay,,, the only person who can define hate speech is the victim or the person who it harms,,, gov’t doesn’t decide that,,,,, but if a victim of hate speech makes a case the courts can impose a penalty ….

          • 36. fiona64  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:58 pm

            Bob, I wasn’t being defensive — I was being *accurate.* That’s what our freedom of speech means: you can way your piece without the government making you disappear (as happens in plenty of other countries).

          • 37. fiona64  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:59 pm

            Or, alternately, you can *say* it instead of *way* it. Good grief.

          • 38. Bob  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:16 pm

            Fiona, I can say my piece, and also am assured that the gov’t won’t make me disappear,,,,, first off I would be potected re freedom of speech,, but if I cause another person harm,,,, I may be challenged by that person in a court no one makes the other disappear,,,,,, in fact we would learn to interact with each other, and see each other as persons,,,,

            and the goal is a better society,

          • 39. Rhie  |  January 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm

            Honestly, I think the better solution is enact public peer pressure to embarrass people into not saying certain things in public, and especially not near a microphone. Enlightened self-interest is a powerful tool, and not used nearly enough.

            Glenn Beck wouldn’t even say on his show that n***** were the cause of every bad thing, etc. He’d lose his job and face all kinds of ridicule and lawsuits. He’d be ruined.

            It’s not at all illegal to say that. But, society has decided that it is horrible to say that, and sends people who do to Coventry. Why don’t we and others enact the same kind of pressure?

          • 40. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm

            Fred and Shirley (and I presume others) have been sued for their harmful speech before with varying measures of success. The successful litigations are, of course, being appealed by the Phelps clan. There have been other measures such as the new Arizona one put in place specifically to stop the Phelps, and the UK have banned Fred and Shirley from entering the country meanwhile retaining the right to eject anyone else from WBC who shows up. Interestingly enough, Fred praised Iraq for being the only “Muslim nation” to allow the preaching of Christianity leading to Fred’s invitation by Saddam to come preach there.

            Has anybody else noticed that Fred looks like the evil preacher from Poltergeist?

            Anyways, it most definitely is problematic trying to regulate hate speech. There’s the very slippery slope of what gets regulated next, varying public opinion about what actually constitutes hate speech, and who gets to do the defining. I tend towards leaving the hate speech protected and suing for damages after an actual harm, but the abhorrence of WBC and their venom seriously puts my mettle to the test. I have more sympathy for even the KKK than WBC at times.

            I can only hope that WBC dies when Fred and Shirley finally kick off.

          • 41. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm

            @ Chris in Lathrop. WRT your comment that you hope the WBC dies when Fred and his daughter Shirley finally kick off, all I can say is this: From your mouth to G-d’s ear!
            I too, hope that WBC folds after Fred and Shirley pass away, but neither one of them show any signs of ill health, even though Fred looks as if he is older than dirt. Of course, whether we see this dream become a reality or not will depend upon how thoroughly the grandchildren and great-grandchildren are indoctrinated with WBC;s particular brand of hate. We can hope that most of them get out of there while they are still able to heal from all of that, and are able to become healthy members of society.

        • 42. Rhie  |  January 12, 2011 at 2:04 pm

          Yes, except when the person deliberately puts their nose in their line of my arm. We have many, many people here who like to do that and claim the other person hit them. They have enough clout to do real damage by labeling sites like this hate speech and censoring them.

          Maybe if we get rid of the Religious Right one day then we can think about this more rationally.

          Of course if we get rid of the Religious Right we get rid of 90% of the hate speech.

          Reply
          • 43. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm

            !!! @ Of course if we get rid of the Religious Right we get rid of 90% of the hate speech

        • 44. Carpool Cookie  |  January 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm

          [b]<>[/b]

          Don’t worry. The Westboro Baptist Church will challenge it. They’ve won on issues like that before. And the lawyers in that family only have one client…themselves.

          I’m kind of desensitized to their protests. No regular people or anyone in power seemed to care when they were so hatefully protesting gay funerals for years. But now that they target military funerals, etc., mainstream people are suddenly all up in arms.

          Had the general public shown more compassion earlier, maybe they wouldn’t be dealing with the Westboro cult now.

          Reply
          • 45. Carpool Cookie  |  January 13, 2011 at 6:44 pm

            Oops, I meant to be quoting:

            “if you really want to protect your freedom of seech, someone needs to challenge the 300ft free zone in which it is illegal… “

            At other sites I put <> around quotes I’m responding to. Here, those symbols seem to throw the system off!

      • 46. Sagesse  |  January 12, 2011 at 5:27 pm

        The Canadian definition of hate speech (as paraphrased by Wikipedia):

        “In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[10] against any ‘identifiable group’ is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An ‘identifiable group’ is defined as ‘any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.’ It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.”

        The premise is that there can be reasonable limits on free speech when it incites hatred or violence toward an ‘identifiable group’. The First Amendment notion of free speech does not tolerate limits, and that’s not likely to change soon, but if one were going to consider limits, such a definition of hate speech would be a place to start.

        Reply
        • 47. Rhie  |  January 12, 2011 at 6:13 pm

          A place to start, yes. But we’d have to very specifically and narrowing define speech that incites hatred to even have it considered.

          I would instead amend that to read speech that is said with the intent to cause emotional harm or lead others to cause physical harm against a protected class. It would have to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the speech did indeed cause significant (and that would have be defined) harm to a class or member of that class and was said with the express and direct intent to do so. A case would have to be brought each time someone had this complaint.

          Otherwise the law could be use to outlaw sites like this one. After all, we incite hatred in the fearful and the bigoted.

          Reply
          • 48. Sagesse  |  January 12, 2011 at 6:57 pm

            Rhie,

            In a speech since he retired, Justice Souter described the role of the Supreme Court as balancing constitutional rights when they are in conflict. Restrictions on hate speech are easier to accept if you have already accepted that LBGT people have civil rights. The restriction is not to punish the hate speakers, it is to protect the identified group being targetted.

            In the US, LGBT people will get protection when the Supreme Court wakes up one morning and decides that they have protectable rights…. that they somehow didn’t have yesterday, and haven’t had all along.

          • 49. Rhie  |  January 12, 2011 at 7:32 pm

            I could only accept hate speech restrictions under the conditions I described above. I think LGBT people have civil rights, being bisexual myself. One of those rights is free speech.

            I think public pressure and appealing to enlightened self interest are better ways to pressure to people into behaving better. Laws are only as good as they are enforceable.

          • 50. Rob Tisinai  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:17 pm

            Speech with the intent to cause emotional harm? There’s no way we can measure that or prove it.

          • 51. Rhie  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:31 pm

            It’s not impossible. It is very difficult, and it should be, to prove though. Our legal system establishes intent all the time – that’s part of what distinguishes a hate crime murder from a regular murder.

            I don’t want it any other way.

          • 52. MJFargo  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:04 am

            While I have no way to measure this assertion, I would offer that Fred Phelps has done more to advocate for the rights of LGB&T people than he has hurt them. His outrageousness has called people who were previously benign or oblivious to the persecution of LGB&T people more than he has rallied the forces against us. I lived in Topeka for 20 years–openly gay– and had less attacks on my character than the following 20 years that I’ve lived in San Francisco. Phelps offends human dignity and has few people who support him. So I say, “Let him act like the fool he is.” It only helps us.

            Now at the same time, in the article above this one, it’s pointed out that people like Phelps do incite those “lone wolves,” and there’s the bind. People like Phelps call to those few who will act against the interest of themselves and others. And by and large, I think the vast majority of this country recognize that the Fred Phelps of this world are deserving of ridicule and condemnation. But it leaves the question of what to do about the few he incites.

    • 53. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:49 am

      who actually determines what is hate speech? Maggie thinks “The Gays” are the hateful ones… Since this is Rob’s posts…. min 1:20, 1:50, 2:20… “hateful bigot…”

      Reply
    • 54. anonygrl  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:20 pm

      No, Bob, ANY sort of protest, whether actual hate speech or not should be prohibited within 300 feet of a funeral.

      Hate speech is necessary only in that it is an expression of the freedom we hold extremely dear. Our country was founded on the idea that we would be free to believe and think and speak as we wanted to do. It is the bedrock of our society.

      And what that freedom means is that EVERYONE can say his or her piece. Even the people we don’t agree with. Even the people we think are hateful.

      I completely understand that you see in your country that banning hate speech doesn’t prevent YOU from saying what you believe. And that works for you, and that is fine. But if I were a Nazi, or a bigot, or any of those types who are banned, I would not think that MY speech was hateful, I would think it was the truth. And I would not be entitled to speak that truth.

      Here, we have long since chosen to allow people to say what they will (barring, of course, the direct incitement of violence, and the use of slander). We do curtail free speech in some ways, for instance this 300 ft rule, but all in all, if we err, it tends to be in the direction of freedom. And while that does cause some grief, certainly, it is the side I would wish to err on in any case.

      I know you and I go round and round about this, but the dystopia I fear more than any other is not a post nuclear armageddon, it is the one portrayed in the classic “1984”. You can regulate everything I can do, but leave alone what I can think.

      Reply
      • 55. Bob  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:06 pm

        anonygrl yup this is a passionate discussion,,,, wow you are sounding like the religious right,,, Our Country was founded on freedom of speech!!!!! does that mean you want to keep it that way,,,,,,, no evolution yup the bedrock,,,

        and your statement “But if I were a Nazi….” woooo,,, you’re not,,,, so why are you even going there…..

        the truth is and you clarify (barring, of cours, the direct incitement of violence, and the use of slander) you do curtail free speech in some ways,,,

        I’m just asking you to accept that reality you do curtail free speech in some ways

        both of our countries are aiming to err in the direction of freedom,,, it just seems that the U.S. that freedom tends to be more for the person spewing the hate…

        And your last sentence sums it up, “but the dystopia I fear more than any other….”

        the bottom line is FEAR,,,, that is what rules the U.S. at least I don’t have that fear, caus we at least take the risk of attempting some checks and balances,,,,

        Reply
        • 56. anonygrl  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm

          In a way, yes, I agree with some of the things the Religious Right argues for. In others I do not, but their right to SAY what they will, I support.

          I am aware that we curtail free speech, and have said so in my previous post. That we do so to a much lesser degree than you do is the issue at hand.

          It is interesting to me that your country is closer to that dystopia than mine is, and yet you are less concerned about it. By curtailing what people can say, your country is closer to restricting what they are allowed to think and believe than mine is, and you have accepted this curtailing of freedom in exchange for a sense of security. That this works for you is totally ok with me, but I have to admit a preference for our bias in this. Remember that rather well known quote from Ben Franklin, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” I think that speaks volumes about how we look at this issue here in the US.

          Reply
          • 57. Bob  |  January 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm

            anonygrl, we don’t curtail free speech, we honor it, and attempt to do so and encourage it, by curtailing hate speech, people are more free to ramble and it’s easy to point out when you’ve wondered out of bounds, simply in the course of the dialog, usually there is no good that comes from hate speech,,,,,,

            people are free to thnk as they please and even to express those thoughts in groups of like minded people,,,

            I have ownership of my thoughts in a way that ensures me no one, not gov’t , not the church, not the bullies in the schoolyard can control my thoughts,,, minds are free Iam secure in that,,,,,,

            here’s a thought, what if you don’t have to sacrifice liberty for security, what if they come as a package,,,,,

            the U.S. does have a history of curtailing liberties of it’s citizens in order to obtain security of the nation,

            but hey, those are only my thoughts,,, and with that I’ll concede, you win this argument,,,,,,, you’re right,,, and I have no need to impose my thoughts or ideas any further …

          • 58. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm

            One example of U.S…..curtailing liberties of it’s citizens in order to obtain security of the nation is anything to do with commercial air travel. If you say the wrong word, or joke at an airport or plane you could end up in Federal Prison.

          • 59. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm

            still learning how to apply italics…

          • 60. elliom  |  January 13, 2011 at 8:32 am

            @Bob
            @anonygrl

            I think I see some of what’s going on here (by reading beween the lines).

            We’re all socialized to our own communities (and nations, by extension) and have a natural propensity to see it as better, easier, safer than others, even those that are substantially the same. I think that’s part of what’s going on here.

            An example of this would be the differences between US gov’t (congressional/presidential) vs UK gov’t (parlimentary). Americans can’t understand how the British can stand not electing (directly) their chief executive, and the British can’t understand how a gov’t so divided (in power and parties) can function. Being socialized into an envrionment provides a level of insight that isn’t available to somone not.

            As an American, I can study Canadian law, gov’t, society. Chat with Canadians. Follow Canadian news. But, I’m not a Canadian. I’m not socialized into Canadian culture. Canadians are different from Americans. They have different values, based on different history. Neither is more or less right or better than the other, it’s just a different perspective.

            In some ways, that leads to a difference in vocabulary. For an American to say “I believe in Free Speech,” they’re saying something that is fundamentally (in both conotation, and denotation) different than the Canadian who says the same thing. We’re using the same words but with different definitions.

            The concept is explained much better by this book:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

    • 61. Rhie  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm

      Some forms of hate speech are – some forms of speech are. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre unless they actually is one, for instance. Libel and slander are also crimes.

      BUT. It is incredibly difficult to prove a libel, slander or hate speech case. And it should be. Curtailing free speech is one step from curtailing free thought.

      Reply
  • 62. Alan McCornick  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Sometimes, like today, the same old same old comes through like fresh new information. An awareness that this is a battle for dignity and for civil rights and that one of the main sources of opposition to those rights is the Roman Catholic Church. Not every individual catholic thinks like this bigot, Evans, obviously. Thank God for cafeteria Christians, who pick out the good parts and leave the bad. But this bishop represents the Roman Catholic Church as it is presently constituted. This Bishop fighting Satan in Rhode Island is not just a whack job overstepping his authority. These are not fringe views of an otherwise warm and caring organization. The authority for this man’s statements goes right to the top. The full weight of the Roman Catholic church is behind this bigotry, and we can only wish there were more people like Rob Tisinai willing to point out the emperor has no clothes.

    Reply
  • 63. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 12, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Yes, this “sermon” is hate speech. And it would be vastly different if he were saying things like this in his private life. But to get up in the pulpit and spout such things is definitely NOT what a man or woman who is responsible for the spiritual growth, development, nurturing and feeding of a group of people should be doing. Of course, Pope Benedict will see nothing wrong with this “sermon.” Of course not. After all, this is the Nazi Pope we are talking about. Even if he does try to distance himself from it, and try to make lame excuses.

    Reply
    • 64. Carpool Cookie  |  January 13, 2011 at 6:55 pm

      I’m kind of divided on the “hate speech” issue (and haven’t really studied it much, so no wonder I’m unsure.)

      I kind of like that these people’s hate speech is so public. I’d rather have the Westboro Clan and other fundamentalist religious groups/figures be open about their views and going full-out with them, front and center, rather than have them operate out of some secret room.

      The more they speak and rage, it seems the more people they alienate, anyway.

      Reply
  • 65. Shelly & Simie  |  January 12, 2011 at 10:34 am

    We need 2 post this & other good analisys of onms LIES they r doing the work of saten spreading hate & lies!!! We should keep posting them as we all know that they will definitly without a doubt keep removing them 1 after the other so we will just keep posting them 1 after the other andx tell every1 2 read the bible 2 c 4 themselves the truth of the situation. We cant wait 2 go home finally but do not know when that will be

    Reply
  • 66. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Sarah Palin Hot topic in the national news:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011202145.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline

    Reply
    • 67. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 11:53 am

      Sarah Palin’s ‘blood libel’ comment overshadows a calibrated message

      Reply
    • 68. anonygrl  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:27 pm

      Yet if anyone were to suggest targetting HER, you know she would scream bloody murder about the fact that people were being incited to violence.

      Just ONCE I would like to hear a sincere “Yes, what I did was inappropriate, and I apologize for it” from her. Just once. But we never do. Every time she sticks her foot in her mouth, she turns it around and makes it someone else’s fault.

      Sad. This is a megalomaniac who really needs not to be in the public eye for a while so she can just think about her responses in private and figure out what she does that is wrong. Can we send her to her room without supper?

      Reply
      • 69. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:37 pm

        LOL! Sarah Louise Palin! Go to your room! NOW!!

        Reply
        • 70. Kate  |  January 12, 2011 at 2:06 pm

          I love you, Gregory.

          Reply
          • 71. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm

            Oh my gosh! It’s KATE! MWAHHHH!!! Love you 2!!

          • 72. anonygrl  |  January 13, 2011 at 8:42 am

            Me too with the loving… both of you… smooch!

        • 73. Joel  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm

          Is that only reason parents give kids middle names? So their kids know when they’re angry?

          And “Louise?” I didn’t know that. “Sing out, Louise! (but change your song please).

          Reply
          • 74. Kathleen  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm

            Is that only reason parents give kids middle names? So their kids know when they’re angry?

            That – and so their friends can tease them when they find out what it is.

          • 75. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:51 pm

            Gregory Lynn (as in Penny Lynn…because my mom thought I was going to be a girl….but kept part of the girl name anyway…) But come to think of it, its a name I have pretty much loathed for all my life. NOW, as I revisit it on this post…I kind of like having a boy and an intended girl name…as gender is not so defined anymore for me! WOW! another self-discovery from visiting the P8TT! Yay!!

          • 76. Joel  |  January 13, 2011 at 1:53 am

            Braden, here, and I’ve never been able to figure it out, since both of my folks are New York Jewish, and Braden is Irish or Scottish or something

            It is a Jewish tradition to give your children names that begin with the first letter of the nsme of a loved relative; somewhere, there’s a “B” in my family (besides my Dad), and I always wondered if they looked up an Iridh name because one of my birth parents was purportedly Irish.

            Sorry, random late night musings.

          • 77. Rhie  |  January 13, 2011 at 2:13 am

            Hey, Joel don’t apologize hehe.

            Everyone in my family is named after everyone else. My first name is from Mom, Grandmother and Great-Granddad (although ours is the female form of it). My middle name goes seven generations back.

            My Dad is named for his grandfather and great-grandfather. My cousin is named for my Dad and his grandfather.

            My brother is named for our grandfather – but his first name is new. Which means someone in the next generation after ours will have it.

            Unfortunate names don’t get weeded out. I have a cousin who is Clarence Dewey. Fortunately, everyone knows him as Jack.

            This has been happening since the family name has been in the US in the 1860s.

            Oh, and if a child died in infancy the next child of that sex was given that name.

            Yea. Genealogy is a lot of fun. Year isn’t always helpful, because two people in the same generation can have the same name.

          • 78. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:20 am

            And My first and middle names were both chosen by my birth mother from the middle names of two of her brothers. And I have been able over the years to build a good relationship with the surviving uncle. Each of the four of us was named after someone who was important to my mother. My older brother’s first name is my father’s first name, and his two middle names are from the preacher who married may mother and father in 1951. I am not totally sure where she got my sister’s names, but fortunately, they both have names that are still commonly seen, and are musical. Our names, in birth order are; Russel Cleo Farrell, Rebecca Ann, Victoria Lynne, and Richard Allen.

          • 79. elliom  |  January 13, 2011 at 8:40 am

            @Rhie

            Sad fact of my family….I have a cousin, (true, i SWEAR!) who’s name is:

            Martin Martin Martin

            We call him Marty

            But, then again, we call Wm. Robert…yep…Billy Bob

          • 80. Kathleen  |  January 13, 2011 at 9:33 am

            My parents considered naming me after my grandmothers whose names were Ethyl Mae and Ada Fay. They changed their minds at the last minute. I’m not crazy about my name, but I do appreciate it when I realize what a close call I had with true disaster. Wheh.

          • 81. Kathleen  |  January 13, 2011 at 10:28 am

            I didn’t know that, Richard. And they even spell it the same way. :)

          • 82. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 10:37 am

            Yes, and one of the things I like about the song is that it is such an upbeat, uptempo song. Very good to dance to,and I have always thought that someone should put Rosanna to music!

        • 83. elliom  |  January 13, 2011 at 8:37 am

          Louise…..Louis (Hi, Louis!)…am I on to something here?

          Reply
          • 84. anonygrl  |  January 13, 2011 at 8:48 am

            I was named after both my grandmothers. My next sister got Mom’s middle name (Marie) and the middle name Alisa, which was just a name Mom liked. The youngest got Linda Valerie because Mom thought it sounded pretty. My brother got Andrew Hagen… because my Dad didn’t want him to be a “the third” as he was named after his own father, William Warren.

            Sadly, that meant that all my siblings got a good middle name but I did not. I got stuck with Louise. Blech.

          • 85. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 9:03 am

            Actually, I happen to like the name Louise! I am just so sorry that someone had to curse that name by giving it to Sarah as her middle name. But then again, Sarah Palin is very far in attitude from all the other Sarahs I have ever known, so I guess someone must not have liked the name Sarah to curse it by making it Ms. Palin’s first name.

          • 86. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 13, 2011 at 9:08 am

            I think Louise is a great middle name. I was about one hour away from being named Madge – thankfully I was born the day after my grandma!

          • 87. Kathleen  |  January 13, 2011 at 9:46 am

            anonygrl, Louise is a beautiful name!

            I got saddled with Rosanna, which was bad enough to begin with but then Gilda came along made it worse.

          • 88. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 10:12 am

            Kathleen, don’t forget, Toto had a beautiful song named Rosanna! And I have always liked that name.

          • 89. Carpool Cookie  |  January 13, 2011 at 6:59 pm

            LOUISE BROOKS rules.

      • 90. Bob  |  January 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm

        No you can’t cause you’ve just defended her right to do that,,,

        send her to Canada,, and we’ll take care of it for ya,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

        Reply
      • 91. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 12, 2011 at 3:59 pm

        Oh, I wish we could send SIster Sarah to her room. I would love to see her lose her political career and her career on Fox, and be banned from the political arena until she learns how behave as an adult human being. Guess that means she would be in her room for a long long time.

        Reply
      • 92. Sarah  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm

        I agree, anonygrl, I want her to at least show that she realizes what she has said or put out there could be part of the problem. Whether it had anything to do with what happened in Tucson or not, there is no denying (to a reasonable person, at least) that it could be misinterpreted. That is what gets to me, there is this false reality that everything she does is perfect and reasonable and nothing bad could possibly come from it. I can only hope that this will create some sort of dam on people’s words and actions in regards to this sort of rhetoric. I hope, but at the same time I am not hopeful. If Palin were to admit the possibility, perhaps others would follow. But I do not see that happening.

        And today on the radio (NPR) they said her team says that they were not crosshairs of a gun, but some sort of surveyor’s mark?? Come on, people! What person would know that? Who would think of that? “Oh, well I see this list of people we should target, but those are only surveyor’s marks on their home districts. I need to be calm about this, she only used surveyor’s marks.”

        This is about the time I want to grab people by the collar and give them a good shake or smack in the face and say, “what world are you living in!?”

        Reply
        • 93. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:55 pm

          yeah….right…ok…. @says that they were not crosshairs of a gun, but some sort of surveyor’s mark?

          Reply
  • 94. Skemono  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    the only institution God created in His own image: Man as male and female united in marriage.

    What does that even mean? God created marriage in his own image? I thought God was supposed to have created man in his image, not marriage. Saying he created “marriage” in his image makes no sense.

    Of course, it’s also a plain denial of history to preach about how much you consider marriage sacred, considering that for almost half of its existence, the Catholic church did not consider marriage a sacrament.

    Reply
    • 95. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:23 pm

      They are constantly making stuff up about the bible as the go.

      Reply
      • 96. anonygrl  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm

        The good thing about the Bible is that it contradicts itself SO much that you can find a verse to justify almost anything, including the exact opposite of what you were justifying yesterday.

        Makes it convenient for this sort of useage.

        And try this one… ask a CINO “If marriage is all that sacred an institution, why can’t priests marry? They USED to be able to do so, in fact, so did Popes. How is it that marriage is “created in God’s image” and his spokesperson on earth is not allowed to participate?”

        Reply
        • 97. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm

          Most of these guys are evangelical. Catholic logistics need not apply. Good question though.

          The bible doesn’t define marriage, so fundamentalists assume the creation of Eve coincided with the creation of marriage. Since both Adam and Eve were created in god’s image, then so was the relationship (marriage) that they had between each other.

          I grew up around Evangelicals, I can sort of hear what logic they’re attempting to make. What they won’t admit is how in this case, the institution of marriage is nothing but a man’s symbolic interpretation of genesis, and not a product of god himself.

          Reply
        • 98. TexasJoe  |  January 13, 2011 at 3:58 am

          Priests CAN marry – they take a VOW to remain celibate. They in essence agree not to marry.

          Reply
          • 99. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:22 am

            And yet, without that vow to remain celibate, they can not take their final vows to become priests. The Church can tell the lie that priests can marry, but the only ones that actually do get to marry are the ordained deacons.

          • 100. elliom  |  January 13, 2011 at 8:53 am

            Some exceptions are made for Eastern Right Catholics, too. Relevant portion:

            Eastern and Western Christian churches have different traditions concerning clerical celibacy. These differences and the resulting controversies have played a role in the relationship between the two groups in some Western countries.

            Most Eastern Churches distinguish between “monastic” and “non-monastic” clergy. Monastics do not necessarily live as monks or in monasteries, but have spent at least part of their period of training in such a context. Their monastic vows include a vow of celibate chastity.

            Bishops are normally selected from the monastic clergy, and in most Eastern Catholic Churches a large percentage of priests and deacons also are celibate, while a portion of the clergy (typically, parish priests) may be married. If a future priest or deacon is to be married, his marriage must take place before ordination to the diaconate. While in some countries the marriage continues usually to be arranged by the families, cultural changes sometimes make it difficult for such seminarians to find women prepared to be the wife of a priest, necessitating a hiatus in the seminarians’ studies.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

        • 101. Joe  |  January 13, 2011 at 10:43 am

          The bible only really contradicts itself if you only read it on the surface. The only way to truly understand what the bible says is to take into account the culture(s) it was written in in context with what was happening in history. Unfortunately, especially with the old testament, so little information is left of the culture and history.

          Take Sodom and Gomorrah lacking the Jewish tradition, and numerous books in the Jewish bible, it is easy to believe homosexuality by itself was the cause of destruction, taken in context with the other passages mentioned here it becomes more clear that wasn’t the case. According to Jewish scholars (not all of them, mind you) they were destroyed primarily because angels were seducing women, who were giving birth to beings called Nephilim.

          Which you believe depends on how much you research and what your stance is on the existence of angels.

          Reply
          • 102. Skemono  |  January 13, 2011 at 1:04 pm

            The bible only really contradicts itself if you only read it on the surface.

            Or just read it at all.

            The only way to truly understand what the bible says is to take into account the culture(s) it was written in in context with what was happening in history

            I agree, context is certainly important in understanding what the authors meant. But that doesn’t explain away numerous contradictions.

          • 103. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm

            There is also the fact that especially with books such as Leviticus, most people are not aware of the fact that this is the book of the Levitical law that is primarily for the Levitical priesthood. This is why these laws when taken in their proper context are for ritual purity. There is also the fact that without the proper context, many of the passages have been misinterpreted, misquoted, and redacted over the centuries. And in books like I&II Kings, I&II Samuel, and I&II Chronicles, while these three pairs of books cover the same time period in the history of the Jewish people, they were written with different areas of emphasis. that in and of itself makes it seem as if these six books are contradictory, when it is simply that each set of books had a different purpose, so different items were brought out in each.

      • 104. Carpool Cookie  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:06 pm

        I believe the majority of the marriages actually MENTIONED in the Bible were polygamist, anyway.

        Do they really want to “go there”???

        Reply
        • 105. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:32 pm

          No, they don’t! Especially with a rabbi and rebbitizen in the house who can tell them exactly what Saul meant when he reminded David that he (Saul) was his (David’s) father-in-law twice over! They really cannot seem to handle the fact that King David of Israel was bisexual and that he and Jonathan were married!

          Reply
    • 106. AndrewPDX  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm

      Ok, Christianity is a monotheistic religion, Catholicism’s worship of saints notwithstanding, so to be married in God’s image means you can marry yourself?

      Hm… Imagine the tax benefits I can get…

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 107. Ronnie  |  January 12, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    I wonder….will NOM, FRC etc. etc. come to the defense of this guy:

    ANTI-GAY CREATIONIST TEACHER WHO BRANDED STUDENT WITH CROSS IS FIRED
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/anti-gay-creationist-teacher-who-branded-student-with-cross-is-fired.html

    (me) Hey NOM, does “protect the children” mean brand the children with crosses?…..Why weren’t you protecting those children, NOM?…Hmmm?….Hmmm?…Where were you?….These kids have to spend the rest of their lives with these scars……It took 14 months to fire him….meanwhile, the student teacher in Oregon, who admitted that he was gay when he answered a question from one of his students, was fired right away…He won his job back….but does anybody else see the double standard….i.e. Anti-gay “Christian” teacher who caused physical harm to children deserves a year long investigation….Gay Student Teacher, who only answered a question honestly, age appropriately & respectfully, gets fired right away…….who exactly in this country is receiving special rights?

    : / …..Ronnie

    Reply
    • 108. celdd  |  January 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm

      And it cost the school district $900,000 for the hearing and the rest of the process. Taxpayers are thrilled.

      Reply
    • 109. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:03 pm

      And this teacher will more than likely be hired by some private Southern Baptist school precisely because he did this. That is what is really the worst part of it.

      Reply
  • 110. allen  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    JoeMyGod reported repealing gay marriage WILL NOT be apart of the GOP agenda.

    Reply
    • 111. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm

      We can hope!

      Reply
  • 112. allen  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    ….in NH.

    Reply
  • 113. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    Reply
  • 114. Rhie  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Watching

    Reply
  • 115. Michael  |  January 12, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Radical anti-gay actiivist/false prophet Evans is confusing homophobia with Christianity. Christ never condoned homophobia. To claim He did is to remake Christ into a cheap, plastic replica of those caught up in homophobia.

    Everywhere in Scripture, and there are many places, the listed sins of Sodom NEVER include homosexuality. To equate loving same sex couples who want to marry and raise families with depraved heterosexuals determined to gang rape some angels is absurd.

    The Catholic Church claims to love us. Claiming that law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans are products of Satan and lying about Scripture is not love. It’s reviling and the Bible is clear that revilers are going to hell. I rebuke false prophet Evans in the name of Christ!

    Reply
    • 116. TexasJoe  |  January 13, 2011 at 4:04 am

      By what authority do you declare Evans a false prophet? If you have some quarrel with his claims, thats what presentments are for.

      Get yourself and 8 others of the church you attend, make out a presentment, outlining his transgressions, and take it to the authorities.

      Reply
  • 117. Michael Adrian  |  January 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Off Topic:

    I rediscovered a panel discussion called “What’s Sex Got to Do with Family” from The Graduate Center at CUNY from a couple years back. Lots of interesting stuff about what is/isn’t a family, how sex and family do/don’t go together, marriage, etc. Warning: It is highly academic, but that probably won’t scare any P8TTers away. :)

    The second and third speakers were most interesting to me.

    http://fora.tv/2009/10/05/Whats_Sex_Got_to_Do_with_Family#fullprogram

    Reply
    • 118. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      Listened to first few minutes…looking forward to reviewing the rest! Thanks for post as my hubby has challenged me to become for academic in gender studies and other human studies as he’s noticed my growing interest in this area… this looks intriguing : )

      Reply
  • 119. Joel  |  January 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Perhaps this forum would be a good place to start a list of “clobber verses” and responses to them. I’m certainly no biblical scholar, and only remember select prayers, the phrase “father comes, mother comes,” the numbers one thru ten, and for an odd reason, the word “quickly” in Hebrew, but here’s the first clobber verse: Leviticus 18:22
    This is the verse that in modern translations of the old testament that, paraphrased, reads “It is abomination for a man to lay with another man as he would with a woman.” there is a second verse in, I think Deuteronomy, that reads exactly the same, except for the addition of death penalty.

    In the original passage, the word “with” is absent, and the verb “lay” takes a direct object, which implies a lack of consent on the person being “laid.” Considering the historical perspective, in an era where women were considered chattel to be bought and sold, and when it was a common practice of conquering armies to rape the vanquished as a show of dominance (and when the bi-sexual nature of most humans was more accepted, in a way), a better translation of the passage would be “do not take a msn in the way you would take a woman *against his will* – it is abomination.”

    Add to this that the Hebrew word that is translated as “abomination” refers to ritual abomination, not moral abomination.

    Okay? Sodom has already been discussed, so perhaps we’ll move on to the NT? Who’d like to tackle Romans I and Corinthians? My thumb is tired!

    Reply
    • 120. Joe  |  January 13, 2011 at 9:29 pm

      Romans 1 was a letter from Paul to the remaining Roman Christians. Those who remained after christianity was banned were mostly Gentiles who didn’t take up Jewish practices (i.e. Circumcision, and kosher food). Many of these were of weaker faith and fell back into their pagan worship of the goddess Cyris ( not sure how it’s spelled, something like that).

      These practices included ritual sex with the priests who were typically eunuchs, castrated to be more like their goddess. Women would do the same with priestesses. Paul was condemning above all else coming to a belief in God and then denouncing him, while listing some of the things the pagan practices included. No evidence to suggest that he was talking about what we call homosexuality today.

      Corinthians mentions something often translated to the effeminate, and abysses of themselves with men. If you read the whole list the sins are categorized fairly tightly, and the third in that category deals with those who profit from slavery. The effeminate are most likely (male) prostitutes, abysses are those who use prostitutes, and the last are those who profit from prostitution, or slavery.

      Reply
  • 121. PoxyHowzes  |  January 12, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    According to the NT, Jesus predicted that Peter would lie about knowing Jesus three times before dawn. Peter did just that, and as a reward, Jesus made him the first pope.
    Since then, all Bishops have supposedly had a “laying on of hands” that passes along the tradition.

    So when Bishop Evans claims something is true, shouldn’t we consider the tradition on which the church was founded?

    Reply
    • 122. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:05 pm

      Bravo! Spot on, PoxyHowzes! Welcome to the P8TT family! Care for some challah and MILK?
      Also, in another tradition–“If you can’t say anything nice, say it in Yiddish and come sit by me!”
      My husband, who is a Lubavitcher rabbi, says to tell you that he agrees more than you could possibly know, and that we have a seat waiting for you any time you care to stop in for a visit.

      Reply
      • 123. Joel  |  January 13, 2011 at 1:18 am

        If I hear one more word about your challah, I’m going to have to get on s plane with my husband, confront you face to face, and demand that you put your bread on the table! ;)

        Seriously, the last time we were in L.A., we got a raisin challah from Canter’s on Fairfax, and it was such a disappointment. Dry, with raisins bordering on rancid. And I am a great cook, but as a baker, my skills are about the same as my baseball (or any other ball) skills. Stereotypical, but true. I cannot hit a sphere with a club. And my lack of baking skills is most likely the reason I haven’t received the latest update of “The Agenda”. Or my pink Kitchenaide stand mixer.

        Can you ship challah?!?

        Reply
        • 124. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:08 am

          With a snail mail address I can. Email me at BerylJ1963@rocketmail.com, and I will get in touch with you about it. And don’t feel bad. I have done so many household repair tasks that are stereotypically given to the lesbians that I will never get my queer badge, and they are threatening to come and take BZ’s badge back!

          Reply
          • 125. anonygrl  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:38 am

            Which is why I am here to say “bisexual”!!! Best of both worlds… we get to play softball, and make the gourmet picnic for afterwards!

            And, by definition, EVERYONE is welcome on our team.

          • 126. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:41 am

            Household repairs are for repairmen! (seriously – you don’t want to see the damaging effects of power tools in my hands.)

          • 127. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 8:59 am

            Yes, and LLB, you are yet more proof that the Rainbow Tribe is more than the stereotypes that so many try to use in order to continue to oppress us. Yes, there are things where I insist that we call a trained professional, but there are other things where I do have some basic knowledge and prefer to do myself. I can change the locks on the doors when the old doorknobs die. I can put in a new toilet. I can change out the vanity cabinet and sink. But these are things that some heterosexuals think gay men cannot do, and tell us to call a lesbian. And I know a lot of straight women who do things that people would tell them to get a man to do. It just goes to show that we are as varied a group as any other demographic in America and around the world.

        • 128. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 7:42 am

          Joel, I made a blunder. the email addy is beryl1963@rocketmail.com. Oy! Me and my speeding impatient fingers that are moving at three times the speed of my brain. Oh, well, guess I need another pot of coffee this morning!

          Reply
          • 129. Peterplumber  |  January 14, 2011 at 7:59 am

            Regarding stereotypes of the Rainbow Tribe…I really don’t fit in. As my screen name suggests, I am a plumber and have worked in construction all my adult life. I drove a pick up truck for years, but have now converted to a more acceptable car for a gay guy, a subaru. I can take a house apart and put it all back together again WITHOUT a manual. My partner is a welder who also works in construction.
            Sometimes I am embarrased by the actions of gay people when they are in public. They seem to like perpetuating the stereotype.

  • 130. Kate  |  January 12, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    So, McCain didn’t even bother to attend the memorial in the state he supposedly represents???

    Reply
    • 131. DebbieC  |  January 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm

      I believe he did. A couple of news sites said he cut his South America fact-finding trip short to attend the service. I’m not a fan of his at this point, but I really can’t find fault with his response to the Arizona tragedy.

      Reply
  • 132. Protect Civil Marriage » The Roots of Violent Rhetoric  |  January 13, 2011 at 8:15 am

    […] “The Evil Modern Day Works of Satan” […]

    Reply
  • 133. Andrew_SEA  |  January 13, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    What I find incredibly sad is the blatant use not only of the man’s position in his religious order, but his authority to spread this message to his flock on issues of political nature.

    Maybe I am clueless, but are not Christians suppose to emulate Christ? Is Christ not the example which all of his followers strive to be like?

    If so – we have some very LARGE disparities. Correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus never once singled out any of the outcasts of society in his day to focus his lessons and teachings against.

    Back then, prostitutes, lepers, beggars, thieves were all misfits and shunned by society. Rather than shun them – Jesus embraced them. He healed them, fed them, included them and spent the majority of time ministering to them and teaching that even sinners are human beings worthy of inclusion and love.

    He used them in his lessons – like the one about the prostitute whom folks said needed to be stoned at the city gates according to the law. Jesus replied something to the effect that those without sin cast the first stone.

    So here we have a representative of the church casting stones from his pupit and claiming the ability to know and judge my heart even though he is human – not divine. Hmmm… If he is attempting to follow Christ’s path – this is an “oopsie”. He has no right firmly planting his backside on God’s throne of judgement.

    If NOM, in it’s campaign to treat gays less than human is attempting to follow Jesus’ footsteps as well – explain where in the Bible did Jesus travel through Judea and Sumeria on a donkey cart preaching against those outcasts of society by whipping up the hate against them?

    When did Jesus go to Pontius Pilate and ask for legislation from Rome to discriminate against these people and treat them less than humans?

    If you really want to see Jesus’ anger in action – look at how he reacts to the local groups of organized religion. How He turned over the tables of the money changers outside of their temples whom were profiteering on people’s sins versus their need for forgiveness and love.

    How he was angry when people treated the less unfortunate lower than animals – the crippled, blind, beggars, and outcasts.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that by their actions – this priest person and NOM are in no way reflecting the example and teachings of Christ.

    Everyone has sin – nobody has the right to treat people lower or inferior because of it. Instead – love, tolerance, respect, and ministering by example are the lessons I have received by Christ’s example.

    I don’t claim to be a Christian due to what that name now represents. A Christian means to be a follower of Christ. I think they are forgetting whom their example is.

    It is just a shame that it takes a non-Christian to remind a Christian how to behave and act.

    Reply
  • 134. Maggie4NoH8  |  January 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    OFF TOPIC – but I wasn’t able to watch yesterday…

    President Obama’s address in AZ yesterday

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf

    Hopefully, I did that right…

    Reply
  • 135. Maggie4NoH8  |  January 13, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Headline:

    Pawlenty would reinstate ban on homosexuals in the military

    http://afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147502104

    Reply
    • 136. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 13, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      At least I know to start now in North Carolina to organize the counter-campaign before he gets here. Have to make sure the truth gets out before Pawlenty comes in with his poison.

      Reply
  • 137. ebohlman  |  January 14, 2011 at 3:27 am

    When members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy made similar remarks during the marriage equality debate in Argentina, Argentina’s president actually called them out on it, calling their rhetoric “medieval” and comparing it to the Spanish Inquisition. That kind of response from our public officials, not hate-speech laws, is what’s necessary to neutralize the harmful impact of the haters. They thrive on the appearance of being taken seriously.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,301 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...